Dr. Ravindra alias Satish Vithal Rananavare v. Avinash Vithal Rananavare

11. Learned Senior Counsel then invited my attention to the Affidavit of Evidence of Mangala Pedgaonkar (PW-4) who he pointed out was also the Ashvini B. Kakde 10 of 41 daughter of the deceased. He pointed out from the Affidavit of Evidence filed by PW-4 that she has deposed as follows: - “2. I state that I used to frequently meet my father at his residence at 20th Road, Khar (West). I state that my father told me that he intends to make a Will in favour of my two brothers viz. Dr. Ravi Vithal Rananavare and Devendra Vithal Rananavare bequeathing the bungalow and other moveable properties in equal proportion.

3. I state that before executing the Will, my father told me in the year 1991 that he will make provision for gold in the Will for me and my sister Dr. Shashikala Sunil Katkade. I state that I had come to know from my father after execution of the Will that he had executed the Will on 10th August 1991 thereby bequeathing 50% share to my brothers Dr. Ravi Vithal Rananavare and Devendra Vithal Rananavare and made gold provision for me and my sister Dr. Shashikala Sunil Katkade, married sister.” Basis the testimony of PW-4 Learned Senior Counsel submitted that it was clear that the deceased had made known his intention to bequeath his estate in the manner that he had during his lifetime itself. Learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance upon the cross-examination of PW-4 to submit that PW-4 had also identified the signature of the deceased on the said Will in answer to the following questions viz. Ashvini B. Kakde 11 of 41 "Q.15: Do you identify the signature of your father on the passport? Ans. Yes, Q.16.: The signature appearing on the passport and on the alleged Will appears differently. What do you have to say? Ans.: I do not find differences in these two signatures.” He therefore submitted that there could be no dispute the signature appearing on the said Will was that of the deceased.

12. In so far as the second issue, Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the burden of proving forgery/fabrication was entirely upon Defendant No.1. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Daulat Ram and Others vs. Sodha and Others[3] in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held as follows:

Ashvini B. Kakde 12 of 41 He pointed out that Defendant No.1 had admittedly not led any evidence in support of Issue No.2. He, therefore, submitted that Issue No.2 was required to be answer in the negative in keeping with the law laid down in the said judgment.

13. Learned Senior counsel then also placed reliance upon the evidence of Mr. Dilip Mehendale (PW-5), who was the secretary of the Anand Vihar Coop. Housing Society, where the bungalow of the deceased which had been bequeathed to the Plaintiffs was situated. He placed reliance upon the evidence of PW-5 to submit that the nomination form in respect of the said bungalow was signed by the deceased and bore the name of Plaintiff No.1 as being the nominee in respect of the said bungalow.

14. Basis the above Dr. Tulzapurkar, Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Plaintiffs had proved due execution of the said Will as also evidence to Ashvini B. Kakde 13 of 41 show the intention of the deceased was always to bequeath the said bungalow to the Plaintiffs exclusively. He thus submitted that the Plaintiffs were entitled to the grant of Letters of Administration as prayed for in respect of the said Will. He reiterated that the Defendants had failed to lead any evidence to prove Issue No.2 and thus, the question of the same being considered, did not arise.

SUBMISSIONS OF MR.

AKSHAY GAJBHIYE ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO.1.

15. Per Contra Mr. Gajbhiye, Learned Counsel at the outset submitted that the said Will was not a genuine Will. He submitted that the deceased would never have excluded Defendant No. 1 from his Will, since, the deceased and Defendant No.1 shared a very cordial and loving relationship. He thus, therefore, submitted that the said Will was not a genuine Will of the deceased but was a forged and fabricated document. He then submitted that on a plain comparison, the signatures on the said Will with the signature on the deceased’s passport, it was ex-facie apparent that the said Will was forged and/or fabricated. He Ashvini B. Kakde 14 of 41 submitted that the said Will had therefore, clearly been procured by the Plaintiffs who bore a grudge against Defendant No.1 and his brother namely Dr. Suresh alias Surendra Vithal Rananavare.

16. Learned Counsel then submitted that Defendant No.1 was informed about the said Will only on 7th February, 1992 i.e., after a lapse of five months after the death of the deceased. He submitted that the Plaintiffs had during that time manufactured the said Will at the residence of Advocate Lakhnani. He submitted that Mr. Deepak Adsul (PW-2) and Mr. Pramod Kale, the second attesting witnesses had infact never witnessed the deceased executing the said Will and had given false evidence, since they were childhood friends of Plaintiff No.1. He submitted that PW-3 was also a close friend of Plaintiff No.1 and had similarly given false evidence only in order to support Plaintiff No.1.

17. Learned Counsel submitted that Defendant No.1 on becoming aware of the said Will had immediately recognized that the signatures on the said Ashvini B. Kakde 15 of 41 Will were not that of the deceased and it was for this reason that Defendant No.1 had lodged a police complaint with the Khar Police Station bearing C. R. NO. 146/1992.

18. Learned Counsel submitted that the Plaintiffs had in fact failed to discharge the burden of proving due execution of the said Will since, no evidence was led by the Plaintiffs to show that the deceased had at the time of supposed execution of the said Will understood the nature and effect of the disposition made thereunder. He pointed out that failure to prove, by satisfactory evidence that the deceased understood the nature and effect of the bequest, would by itself disentitled the Plaintiffs to Letters of Administration in respect of the said Will. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumari & Ors. Vs. Surinder Pal Sharma[4] in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held in the context of proving a Will held as follows: - 4 MANU/SC/1840/2019 Ashvini B. Kakde 16 of 41 “13. The need and necessity for stringent requirements of Clause

(c) to Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act has been elucidated and explained in several decisions. In H. Venkatachala Iyengar V. B. N. Thimmajamma and Ors. MANU/SC/0115/1958: AIR 1959 SC 443 dilating on the statutory and mandatory requisites for validating the execution of the Will, this Court had highlighted the dissimilarities between the Will which is a testamentary instrument vis-A-vis other documents of conveyancing, by emphasising that the Will is produced before the court after the testator who has departed from the world, cannot say that the Will is his own or it is not the same. This factum introduces an element of solemnity to the decision on the question where the Will propunded is proved as the last Will or testament of the departed testator. Therefore, the propounder to succeed and prove the Will is required to prove by satisfactory evidence that

(I) the Will was signed by the testator; (ii) the testator at the time was in a sound and disposing state of mind; (iii) the testator understood the nature and effect of the dispositions; and (iv) that the testator had put his signature on the document of his own free will. Ordinarily, when the evidence adduced in support of the Will is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of mind of the testator and his signature as required by law, courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of the propounder. Such evidence would discharge the onus on the propounder to prove the essential facts. At the same time, this Court observed that it is necessary to remove suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will and therefore no hard and fast or inflexible Rules can be laid down for the appreciation of evidence to this effect.” Ashvini B. Kakde 17 of 41 He pointed out that in the present case, neither PW-2 nor the Plaintiffs had not led any evidence in support of the fact that the deceased had understood the nature and effect of the disposition made under the said Will. He pointed out that the evidence of PW-2 even if taken, had at face value merely showed that the deceased had performed the ministerial act of signing the said Will and nothing more. He then submitted that even the evidence of PW-4 to prove the signature of the deceased was in the hand writing of the deceased, and was of no value, since the same did not satisfy the requirement of due execution i.e. that the deceased was aware of the nature and effect of the said disposition and after which the deceased voluntarily signed the same. Basis this, he submitted that the requirements of both Section 63 of the Succession Act as also Section 68 of the Evidence Act had not been fulfilled.

19. Learned Counsel then pointed out what according to him there were various glaring suspicious circumstances pertaining to the execution of the said Will viz. Ashvini B. Kakde 18 of 41 a. That both Defendant No.1 and his brother Dr. Suresh alias Surendra Vithal Rananavare had been excluded from the said Will without there being any justifiable cause and/or reason for the same. In support of his contention that such exclusion itself amounted to a suspicious circumstance, he placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kavita Kanwar vs. Pamela Mehta[5], in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- “27. As noticed, there has not been any question on the testamentary capacity and soundness of mind of the testatrix; and her handwriting as also signatures on the Will in question are also beyond controversy. However, the Trial Court and the High Court have concurrently found some such suspicious circumstances which are of material bearing and which have remained unexplained. Put in a nutshell, the unexplained suspicious circumstances so found are: (a) that appellant, the major beneficiary, played an active role in execution of the Will in question and attempted to conceal this fact before the Court; (b) that there had not been any plausible reason for non-inclusion of the only son and other daughter of the testatrix in the process of execution of the Will and for excluding them from the major part of the estate in question; (c) that there was no clarity about the construction supposed to be carried out by the Appellant; (d) that the manner of writing and execution of the Will with technical and legal words was highly doubtful; and (e) that the attesting witnesses were unreliable and there were 5 MANU/SC/0450/2020 Ashvini B. Kakde 19 of 41 contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. Because of these major circumstances coupled with various supplemental factors, the Trial Court and the High Court felt dissatisfied on the root question as to whether the testatrix duly executed the Will in question after understanding its contents.

28. …

29. …

29.1. …

29.2. …

29.3. The aforesaid factor of unexplained unequal distribution of the property is confounded by two major factors related with making of the Will in question: one, the active role played by the Appellant in the process; and second, the virtual exclusion of the other children of testatrix in the process. As noticed, an active or leading part in making of the Will by the beneficiary thereunder has always been regarded as a circumstance giving rise to suspicion but, like any other circumstance, it could well be explained by the propounder and/or beneficiary. In the present case, it is not in dispute that out of the three children of testatrix, the Appellant alone was present at the time of execution of the Will in question on 20.05.2003. As noticed, at the relevant point of time, the Appellant was admittedly living away and in a different Ashvini B. Kakde 20 of 41 locality for about 20-22 years, whereas testatrix was residing at the ground floor of the building and the Respondent No.1 was at the first floor. Even if we leave aside the case of the Respondent No.2 who was living in Shimla, there was no reason that in the normal and ordinary course, the testatrix would not have included the Respondent No.1 in execution of the Will in question, particularly when she was purportedly making adequate arrangements towards the welfare of Respondent No.1. In other words, if the Will in question was being made without causing any prejudice to the Respondent No.1, there was no reason to keep her away from this process. Admittedly, the Will in question was not divulged for about three years. Therefore, the added feature surrounding the execution of the Will had been of unexplained exclusion of the Respondent No.1 from the process.” b. That the Plaintiff (as propounders) had effectively been bequeathed the entire estate of the deceased, to the exclusion of all the other children of the deceased. He submitted that (i) this was by itself a suspicious circumstance and (ii) required the Plaintiffs to remove the said suspicion by clear and satisfactory evidence as has been held in a catena of judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in the case of H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B. N. Thimmajamma and others[6]. c. That neither Advocate Lakhnani, who was stated to be the scribe of the said Will, nor the second attesting witness, namely Mr. Pramod Kale 6 AIR 1959 SUPREME COURT 443 Ashvini B. Kakde 21 of 41 though available had not been called to give evidence in support of the making of the said Will as also the factum of due execution. d. That though PW-3 was aware that the deceased was suffering from an advanced stage of cancer, PW-3 did not deem it fit to either record this fact or even question the deceased about the medication that the deceased was taking to treat his cancer or consider the side effects of the same. e. That the said Will was purportedly executed on 10th August 1991 and the deceased passed away shortly thereafter on 15th September, 1991 which is just over one month after executing the said Will. f. That Plaintiff No.1 is stated to have received the said Will along with Defendant No.1 from advocate Lakhani at his residence. PW-4 in answer to question No.110 has stated as follows; “Q.110: Can you tell how many days after demise of your father you received a copy of the Will as stated in answer to Q. 109? Ans.: Approximately after 15 to 20 days of my father’s demise.” Ashvini B. Kakde 22 of 41 g. That PW-3 on crosss examination was unable to even state the method or procedure that he had supposedly adopted to ascertain whether the deceased was in a sound and disposing state of mind. h. That PW-3 had stated in his cross-examination stated that he used to casually meet the deceased every two weeks approximately whenever he visited Plaintiff No.1. However, neither PW-4 nor PW-2 who also stated they used to visit the deceased’s house frequently ever saw PW-3 meeting the deceased. i. That PW-4 had despite being aware of the fact that the deceased was suffering from an advanced stage of cancer had in her cross examination in answer to question No.62 described the ailment of the deceased as being “casual”. Basis the above Learned Counsel submitted that the said Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. He submitted that it was well settled that when there were suspicious circumstances there was a higher onus on the propounders to Ashvini B. Kakde 23 of 41 dispel these suspicious circumstances by leading satisfactory evidence. Learned Counsel pointed out that in the facts of the present case, the Plaintiffs had not only failed to dispel these suspicious circumstances but had not even attempted to do so. He submitted that though Plaintiff No.1 had filed his Affidavit of Evidence, since PW-1 was never subjected to cross examine the Affidavit of Evidence of PW-1 could not be considered. He submitted that Plaintiff No.2 though available chose not to lead any evidence. He thus submitted that the suspicious circumstances were therefore, not dispelled and/or explained and on this ground alone the Letters of Administration in respect of the said Will could not be grantd to the Plaintiffs or anyone for that matter.

20. He then without prejudice to the above, invited my attention to the signatures of the deceased as appearing on the said Will and submitted that the same were ex-facie not the signatures of the deceased. In support of this contention he pointed out the following: - Ashvini B. Kakde 24 of 41 i. The signature of the deceased as appearing on the passport of the deceased which he submitted was materially different from the signatures of the deceased as appearing on the said Will. ii. The signatures appearing on the foot of the Will as compared to the signatures appearing against the corrections made in the said Will were also materially different.

21. Learned Counsel then pointed out that there were several inconsistencies in the evidence of the Plaintiff’s witnesses in respect of those who were present at the time the deceased supposedly executed the said Will. He pointed out the following inconsistencies from the evidence led by the Plaintiffs viz. a. PW-1 in his Affidavit of Evidence had stated that the following persons were present (i) Dr. Ravindra Vithal Ranannavare (PW-1)

(ii) Advocate Lakhnani (iii) Deepak Adsul (PW-2) and (iv) Mr.

Ashvini B. Kakde 25 of 41 Pramod Kale. b. PW-2 in his Affidavit of Evidence had stated that (i) Dr. Ravindra Vithal Rananavare (PW-1), Deepak Adsul (PW-2), Dr. Balasubramaniam (PW-3) and Mr. Pramod Kale were present. However, PW-2 in cross examination had stated that Plaintiff No.2 i.e. Devendra Vithal Rananavare was also present. c. PW-3 had in his Affidavit of Evidence stated that only Deepak Adsul (PW-2), Mr. Pramod Kale and Advocate Lakhnani were present. PW-3, had in his cross examination confirmed that only these three persons were present. Basis this, he submitted that it was therefore clear that the said Will was never executed in the manner alleged and that the witnesses produced by the Plaintiff had given false and contradictory evidence.

22. Learned Counsel then submitted that Deepak Adsul – PW-2 brother of the attesting witness namely one Naval Adsul were also engaged in a dispute Ashvini B. Kakde 26 of 41 over a Will. He pointed out that Plaintiff No.1 and Deepak Adsul - PW-2 were also attesting witnesses to the Will of the father of Mr. Pramod Kale i.e. the second attesting witness. Learned Counsel pointed out that PW-2 had hidden this fact though he was specifically asked how many Wills he had attested as a witness. Learned Counsel therefore, submitted that this fact made clear that there was a nexus between PW-2 and Plaintiff No.1 for helping each other propound illegal Wills and thereby gain unlawful benefit therefrom.

23. Basis the above he submitted that the Plaintiffs had failed to prove due execution of the said Will and were therefore, not entitled to Letters of Administration based on the said Will.

24. I have heard Learned Counsel carefully, perused the evidence led as also the various judgments cited. However, before dealing with the issues that fall for determination in the present Suit, it will be useful to set out the following Ashvini B. Kakde 27 of 41 facts which can be culled out from the pleadings and evidence on record as being undisputed, viz., The deceased had two wives and six children. Admittedly, the deceased is stated to have executed his last Will and Testament on 10th August, 1991 and passed away shortly thereafter. Admittedly, the only real beneficiaries under the said Will are the sons of the deceased from his second wife i.e. the Plaintiffs. The sons from the first wife have been completely excluded under the said Will for which fact there was no explanation in the said Will or otherwise. The Plaintiffs as propounders have not led any evidence in support of the said Will. Both the attesting witnesses who also have led evidence i.e. Deepak Adsul (PW-2) and Dr. Balasubramaniam (PW-3) are both friends of PW-1. The scribe of the said Will namely Advocate Lakhnani and second attesting witness have not been examined despite being available. The Defendant has not led the evidence of any hand writing expert to prove that the signature appearing on the said Will was not that of said deceased. It is in the backdrop of these facts that I shall now Ashvini B. Kakde 28 of 41 proceed to answer the issues framed.

25. Insofar as the first Issue, viz., “(i) Whether Plaintiffs prove that will was duly executed on 10th August 1991 by Vithal Gunduji Rananavare, deceased father of the Plaintiffs? Before considering whether the Plaintiff has succeeded in proving this issue, it is useful to first set out the requirements which a propounder is required to establish when seeking to prove a Will. The said requirements have been set out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H. Venkatachala Iyengar (supra) which held as follows:-

26. Admittedly, the Plaintiffs themselves as propounders have not led any evidence to prove the said Will. The only evidence led to prove due execution was that of Deepak Raghunath Adsul (PW-2) and Dr. Balasubramaniam (PW-3). It is therefore essential to carefully examine the evidence led by them.. A careful reading of the Affidavit of Evidence of PW-2 to my mind only proves that PW-2 had witnessed the ministerial act of the deceased, affixing his signature on the said Will and nothing more. There is nothing in the evidence of PW-2 to even remotely establish that the deceased was

(i) aware of what he was signing (ii) had understood the nature and effect of the bequest made in the said Will (iii) and was affixing his signature on the said Will out of his own free will and accord. To my mind the evidence of PW-2 does not Ashvini B. Kakde 32 of 41 meet the requirement of duly proving the said Will in confirmity with the requirements laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H. Venkatachla Iyengar (supra)

27. Similarly, the evidence of PW-3 also does not aid the case of the Plaintiffs. While PW-3 has issued the Medical Certificate to the deceased, PW-3 has in his Affidavit of Evidence also deposed to the factum of execution of the said Will. This is indeed curious because (i) PW-3 was the Doctor who had to depose to the mental capacity/evidence of the deceased at the time of the making of the Will and (ii) that the second attesting witness though whom due execution of the said Will could be proved though available was not called to give evidence in support of the factum of due execution. Additionally, while PW-3 has deposed to the factum of due execution in his Affidavit of Evidence, PW-3 has in cross examination stated as follows:- “ Q. 80 Had you seen the deceased or the attesting witness signing the Will? Ashvini B. Kakde 33 of 41 Ans.: Yes, I think so.

28. Therefore, even assuming the evidence of PW-3 can be considered to prove due execution, the same falls short for the same reasons as the evidence of PW-2 since, at the highest PW-3 has also witnessed the ministerial act of the deceased, affixing his signature on the said Will without meeting the requirements of due execution as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H. Venkatachla Iyengar (supra).

29. Additionally, on an over all appreciation of the evidence of PW-3, I find that the same does not pass muster even qua the medical certificate issued. PW-3 has in his Affidavit of Evidence stated that he had examined the deceased at the time of issuing the said certificate. The said certificate issued by PW-3 has appearing on the said Will, also reads as follows:- Ashvini B. Kakde 34 of 41 “I, Dr. D. Balasubramaniam, do hereby certify that I have physically examined the Testator withinnamed and find him fully possessed of all his mental faculties/power of understanding the implication of this WILL which is made without any fraud or co-ercion and signed in my presence before the witnesses.” However, on being questioned in cross examination PW-3 has answered as follows:- “Q.39: Can you tell what examination of the deceased Vitthal Rananavare you conducted prior to giving the present certificate? Ans.: I can say that I had been serially seeing him from April, 1991, almost every 2 to 3 weeks and there was no sudden deterioration in his physical or mental condition. Q.40.: I repeat my question no.39. Can you tell what examination of the deceased Vitthal Rananavare you conducted prior to giving the present certificate? Ans.: I have nothing more to add.

30. Also, it is not in dispute that the deceased was suffering from cancer of which fact PW-3 was well aware. Despite this, PW-3 has issued a Certificate of medical fitness without so much as inquiring so what medication the deceased was on and what the possible side effects of the same would be. This is apparent from the following answers given by PW-3 in cross examination:- “Q.42: Was the deceased Vitthal Rananavare under medication? Ans.: He may be under cancer related medication. Q.43: I put it to you that you were not sure whether the deceased Vitthal Rananavare was under medication or not? Ans.: Yes. Q.44: And is it correct that still you issued the certificate? Ans.: Absolutely, it is correct.” Thus, basis the above it is evident that PW-3 merely signed on the Medical Certificate which was prepared by Advocate Lakhnani as admitted by PW-3 in answer to question No. 93 of his cross-examination, without either actually Ashvini B. Kakde 36 of 41 examining the deceased and/or ascertaining his mental and physical state. Given all these factors which have come to the fore in cross examination of PW-3, I find that I am unable to accept the evidence of PW-3 even on the aspect of proving the deceased to be in a sound and disposing state of mind at the time when the Will was supposedly executed.

31. The Plaintiffs have also sought to rely on the Affidavit of Evidence of PW-4 to prove the signature of the deceased appearing on the said Will. It is not anybody’s case that PW-4 was infact present at the time when the said Will was executed and therefore even assuming her testimony to be correct the same would not satisfy the requirement of Section 63 of the Succession Act, since the same does not, like the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, bear out that the deceased was aware of the nature and effect of the bequest being made and that the deceased had voluntarily signed the said Will. Additionally, I find that the Evidence of PW-4 is also indeed suspect. PW-4 is the daughter of the deceased Ashvini B. Kakde 37 of 41 and claims to have been in frequent touch and contact with her father. Yet however, PW-4 claims to be unaware as to whether or not the deceased was on medication or about his health in general. PW-4 despite deposing to the fact that the deceased was suffering from cancer and had multiple operations for the same has described the health of the deceased as ‘casual’, the following answers given in cross examination are relevant. “Q.6: After the deceased Vithal Rananavare was operated, was he on medication? Ans.: I am not aware. He might be on medication. Q.7.: How frequently you met your father deceased Vithal Rananavare after he was operated in February, 1991? Ans.: Once in a 10 days. Q.:8 How much time you used to spend with the deceased Vithal Rananavare when you used to visit him after February 1991? Ans.: At least one and half hour. Q.10.: Have you ever talked to him about his health and any steps toward cure his ailment? Ans.: No.” Ashvini B. Kakde 38 of 41 Clearly I find that the answers given by PW-4 in cross examination was structured only to support the Plaintiffs case.

32. The two most glaring suspicious circumstances which exist in the present case are (i) the factum of complete exclusion of Defendant No.1 and his brother Dr. Suresh alias Surendra Vithal Rananavare from the said Will and (ii) the fact that the Plaintiffs as propounders are major beneficiaries under the said WillIt is well settled that numerous judicial pronouncements have held both these factors as being suspicious circumstances. The law is equally well settled that when there exists suspicious circumstances a greater onus lies on the propounders to dispel such suspicious circumstance. In the present case the Plaintiffs have not even admitted to do so. There is no reason why Plaintiff No.2, though available, did not come forward to lead evidence nor is there any reason whatsoever as to why Mr. Pramod Kale, the other attesting witness was not called to depose, given the failure of Deepak Raghunath Adsul (PW-2) to prove Ashvini B. Kakde 39 of 41 due execution of the said Will.

33. Additionally, the inconsistencies in the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 is also evident of the fact that circumstances surrounding execution of the said Will are indeed suspicious. PW-2 and PW-3 have both deposed to the fact that they are close friends of the Plaintiff No.1. This is in my view another factor which vitiates against the Plaintiff.

34. Clearly therefore, in my view, I find that in the facts of the present case the preparation and execution of the said Will are shrouded in suspicious circumstances which the Plaintiffs have failed and included to dispel. Basis this I find that Issue No.1 deserves to be answer in the negative and is accordingly so answered. In so far as the Issue No.2 is concerned namely:-

(ii) Whether the Defendant Mr. Avinath Vithal Rananavare, proves that the Will dated 10th August 1991 is forged and fabricated document and that it was not signed by their deceased father? Ashvini B. Kakde 40 of 41 In light of what I have held in Issue No.1, this issue does not survive for consideration.

35. In view of the aforesaid, the Suit is accordingly dismissed. (ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) Ashvini B. Kakde 41 of 41